Stevenson v. Peckham
| Decision Date | 07 May 1948 |
| Citation | 322 Mass. 693,79 N.E.2d 282 |
| Parties | STEVENSON et al. v. PECKHAM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Essex County; J. V. Phelan, Judge.
Proceeding on the petition of Ethel M. Stevenson and Irene M. Peckham against William H. Peckham for the appointment of a conservator of respondent's property. From a decree for petitioners, respondent appeals.
Reversed.
Before QUA, C. J., and DOLAN, RONAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.
W. E. Carey, of Lynn, for petitioners.
T. S. Bubier and C. Ingram, both of Lynn, for respondent.
This case comes before us upon the appeal of the respondent from a decree entered by the judge of probate appointing a conservator of his property. See G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 201, § 16, as appearing in St.1945, c. 728, § 2.
The petitioners are the two living daughters of the respondent. His other heirs apparent or presumptive are two sons and three grandchildren. The evidence is reported, and at the request of the respondent the judge made a report of the material facts found by him which may be summed up as follows. The respondent is eighty-one years of age. He was a contractor and builder up to ten years ago. He then gave up building and did only odd jobs. On April 1, 1940, he became unconscious as a result of a cerebral ‘spasm,’ was treated at a hospital and discharged as improved. During the past few years he has slowed up a great deal and has earned no money from his own labors, although he has been physically well for a man of his years. He resides in Lynn and three of his children live in that city. He has become dissatisfied with the conduct of his son James because of his use of liquor and has expressed dissatisfaction over his son-in-law's drinking habits. He is opposed to the use of intoxicating liquors. His wife died in 1918. For about twenty years he has lived in the cellar of a bungalow on Reed Street, which he built himself. The house is completed except for a few details and has been fit for occupancy, but has never been rented or occupied except by the respondent as just stated. In the past year or two the cellar has become dirty, ‘the bed, table and dishes being filthy.’ There are no sheets or pillow cases on the bed, and the respondent does his own cooking, except when neighbors bring cooked food to him. One of his daughters has on a number of occasions brought food to him. A Miss Lottie Hubley, who is fifty-five years of age, has lived on the same street as the respondent and for the past fifteen years has made it a practice to bring the respondent cooked food three or four times a week. The real estate above mentioned is his only asset. On June 4, 1947, it had a market value of $8,000 subject to a mortgage of $700. On that date the respondent asked Miss Hubley for a loan to pay off the mortgage. In the latter part of June he visited a lawyer's office and stated that he wanted a deed drawn of the property to Miss Hubley as he was going to make a gift of the property to her. The deed was prepared and signed by the respondent on July 21, 1947, and was recorded on July 22, 1947. (The petition now before us was filed in the Probate Court on September 18, 1947.) No note was given to Miss Hubley, nor was any formal mortgage given by the respondent as security or otherwise. He still lives in the cellar of his house and receives old age assistance of $50 a month. The judge further found as follows:
Other facts we find ourselves (Lowell Bar Ass'n. v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 178, 52 N.E.2d 27) are these: The petitioner Mrs. Stevenson, who lived in Lynn, testified that during the past year or so she had noticed that the cellar where the respondent lived was very dirty, but she did nothing toward cleaning the room. She ‘had * * * [her] family.’ She asked him at times to live with her but he said he would not live with anyone. Mrs. Stevenson lived within a half mile of the respondent's house for three years until recently. In 1947 she sent food to him on four occasions but none after she found out that he had conveyed the property to Miss Hubley.
Miss Peckham, the other daughter of the respondent, is unmarried and lives with Mrs. Stevenson. She has visited her father every two or three weeks, and testified that the cellar where he lived was always dirty. She also testified that he was a ‘man who doesn't want his children or anybody else to interfere with his business,’ that he had ‘always handled his own business affairs.’ The respondent's daughters and his son James did not give any financial aid to the respondent, but it is a fair inference from the evidence not only that they were not financially able to do so but also that the respondent did not seek or desire such aid, and that he chose to live his own life, and that he did so. The whereabouts of the respondent's son Ralph have been unknown for the last two or three years.
The respondent testified at length. His testimony was coherent and responsive, particularly clear as to his financial affairs through many years, and discloses no impairment of his mental faculties. He stopped working at his trade because he ‘got petered out pretty quick, couldn't hang on all day long, that's all,’ but ‘can do a job now just the same.’ In the last five years he earned $150 or $200 doing light jobs. He lives in the basement of the bungalow he built. It contains six or seven rooms. He started to build the house about twenty years ago. There is still something to do. The room that he lives in is known as the laundry. He testified that he kept the place clean. He has a gas stove and kitchen range and ice chest. Sometimes neighbors bring in some food, but outside of that he does his own cooking. He heats the cellar by a hot water boiler. He shuts the radiators off in the upper part of the house. The rooms there are plastered; hardwood floors are laid but not finished. The wiring for lights is pretty...
To continue reading
Request your trial